Laserfiche WebLink
motor vehicle incident reports issued <br />by local police and fire departments as <br />the commissioner of public safety. <br />The League of Minnesota Cities opposes: <br />a) Further increasing the maximum <br />exemplary damages that courts may <br />impose against government entities, <br />including cities, found to have violated <br />the MGDPA; further increasing the <br />maximum civil penalty that may be <br />imposed when a court order is issued <br />to compel a government entity to <br />comply with MGDPA; or any <br />statutory change that would make it a <br />mandatory civil penalty to compel <br />compliance under the MGDPA. <br />b) Repealing of the administrative <br />remedies provisions adopted by the <br />2010 Legislature to address disputes <br />regarding MGDPA compliance issues. <br />c) Changing the current record <br />management requirements and <br />statutory definitions. If changes are <br />needed, subject matter experts should <br />make recommendations through the <br />records retention schedule process. <br />DP-2. Maintaining Government <br />Data in Large Databases <br />Issue: The Minnesota Department of <br />Administration Advisory Opinion 10-016 <br />issued in June 2010 maintains that the <br />Minnesota Government Data Practices Act <br />(MGDPA) requires cities to keep records <br />containing public government data so that <br />they can be easily accessible and convenient <br />to use, regardless of how they are kept. <br />Cities maintain that the application of this <br />advisory opinion to large databases in which <br />records are kept in an electronic format <br />forces cities to risk the daily threat of <br />allegations of noncompliance or leaves local <br />government officials confused regarding <br />how to apply the requirement for access to <br />data in circumstances where information <br />technology is utilized to facilitate the <br />management and organization of records <br />and information which often includes public, <br />private, and nonpublic data within individual <br />data sets. <br />In addition, large databases today contain <br />different forms of data, including video, <br />audio, images, and social media. In <br />responding to data practices requests, <br />responsive data could be stored in multiple <br />data bases. Further, with the advent of <br />cloud -based information systems provided <br />by the private sector, newer databases are <br />not typically designed to be controlled by <br />cities to easily separate public from non- <br />public data. <br />Response: The state of current <br />technology requires cities to maintain <br />large databases that are designed to <br />provide secure data storage and <br />maintenance. Those databases are <br />already burdensome and expensive for <br />cities to maintain, but are not available in <br />a form in which public and private data <br />can be easily separated. Requiring cities <br />to design such databases to accommodate <br />extensive data requests under MGDPA is <br />both financially and technologically <br />challenging to achieve. <br />The Legislature should address the <br />growing and costly impact on cities of <br />providing access to specific public data <br />housed in large electronic databases. <br />Cities also require discretion in <br />determining that the release of certain <br />incident data could identify an individual <br />whose identity must be protected. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 94 <br />